With regards simplicity verses tax increases, an example would be abolishing exemptions but lowering rates. My understanding is that relatively few higher-rate taxpayers pay 40% on their earnings over £43,875 because they begin to qualify for ever-more-convoluted exemptions. If we were to abolish the exemptions then their actual level of taxation would rise. Putting aside questions of “fairness” and “progressive taxation” for a moment, this could be rendered tax neutral by dropping the rate. So (and here I pluck figures from the air) the top marginal rate could be dropped to 35% but many of the exemptions removed. The result could be calibrated to be tax neutral. However, the system would be cheaper to administer for both government (fewer HMRC staff) taxpayers (fewer accountants and lawyers) and companies (fewer finance officers). This would create a “Deadweight saving” that could be passed on to taxpayers, redirected into services or shared between them.

The same is of course true of the benefits system, too, as LW notes. In fact, they are increasingly entwined. I agree with Mark, however, that some of the other issues (e.g. drug laws) are not problems of complexity. However, it is true that in general laws are written by a chamber largely made up of lawyers in a manner that is primarily geared towards lawyers. The entire nature of government and legislation could be simplified if there was a cultural change. But I think that would involve biting off a rather larger chunk than would could easily chew.

Tom: the CBO model was in the back of my mind when I wrote the piece and, as you say, it’s one American political import that would be probably be for the good.

LW: agree that it’s not just about tax, though I think the reach and growth in complexity of the tax system is such that it does deserve special treatment. The issue with drug laws, for example, isn’t really about complexity – it’s about evidence and principles.

First, as Tom Papworth says, no-one ever complained about taxation being too simple; but people are very quick to note seeming unfairness when systems are simplified in a way that appears to penalise them.

For example, abolishing the lowest tier of income tax looked like a simplification until everyone realized that it effectively doubled income tax for the poorest. Then, all sorts of whorls and complexities had to be introduced to deal with the consequences without the Treasury losing face. Removing income tax on the first £10k of earnings, however, simplifies taxation for many while appearing to penalise no-one (although of course I recognize matters are more complicated than that).

So simplification needs to avoid being a sneaky way of raising taxes.

Secondly, why simply focus on tax? Benefits, planning, property law, vehicle law, drug laws (including alcohol & tobacco), local government finance, to name just a few areas, are riddled with complexity. No doubt for good reasons, but could simplification be found without major negative outcomes? Surely we don’t want permanent quangos for all these areas?

So, while I agree with you about the benefits of an outside perspective, shouldn’t all government laws, regulations, systems etc. have the opportunity for those affected by them to suggest simplifications and other improvements?

Thirdly, while the idea of beefed up Select Committees is definitely appealing, the US model of Congressional Committees doesn’t seem to have made for simpler laws. In fact the opposite might well be true. So how can we get stronger checks on Government without the kinds of pork barrel politics and over-elaborate laws that have bedevilled the US?

That is both very true and very succinct.

I love the idea of an “Office of Tax Simplification”. Whatever people’s opinion of taxation (and readers of this site are varied in their views), I have never met anybody who complained that the tax code was too simple. (“You know, what we really need in this country, Tom, is another thousand pages of tax regulations.”)

“But why make it a quango?” Well, as your paragraph quoted above notes, it is essential that it sit outside of ministerial control or influence, otherwise it will quickly become just a machine for providing prior justification for actions that have been decided around the Cabinet table. However, the suggestion that it be affiliated to parliament rather than government has some merit – and indeed precedent. I am minded of the Congressional Budget Office in the US. Make it non-partisan and resource it properly and it could be very useful.